§ 3. Miss Burtonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make a statement concerning general protection against repossession afforded to hirers for goods in excess of £300 in value, particularly where the hirer becomes unemployed or is working short time.
§ Sir D. EcclesAs my hon. Friend told the hon. Lady on 19th February, I have no evidence that unwarranted repossessions are taking place, and I do not consider that any change in the scope of the hire-purchase Acts is necessary.
§ Miss BurtonDoes not the President agree that it is quite ridiculous that hirers of goods of a value up to £300 are protected but that those where the value is over that figure are not? is he aware that I myself have had two cases where people hiring in excess of £300 have been threatened with repossession, and is he prepared to look into the matter again without a whole host of examples?
§ Sir D. EcclesThe hirer is protected by these Acts, and traders in general do not seek repossession unless there is good reason for it. We have not had complaints which would justify new legislation.
§ Miss BurtonBut the President is not answering my Question. Am I not correct in saying that the hirer is not protected where the cash value of the goods is above £300?
§ Sir D. EcclesYes, that is quite true, but unless there is a real case, no one wants to bring forward new legislation.
§ Miss BurtonWell, I have given the right hon. Gentleman two cases.
§ 8. Miss Burtonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will amend the Hire-Purchase and Credit Sale Agreements (Control) Order, 1956, to permit extension of the maximum period for the payment of instalments in cases of hardship.
§ Sir D. EcclesNo, Sir. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Sir J. Lucas) was informed on 29th January, it is not a contravention of the Order for an owner to accept whatever payments a hirer can afford to make, so long as there is no variation of the original hire-purchase agreement.
§ Miss BurtonThat is exactly what I have put down. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that if a man falls upon hard times and asks for longer to pay his contributions, the firm is not legally allowed to extend the period beyond the original agreement? What are they to do in a case like that? Does the Minister not know that the firms themselves have written to me, and also to him, asking for this change?
§ Sir D. EcclesI think the hon. Lady is wrong. It is illegal to vary the agreement by extending the period of repayment beyond a permitted maximum, but if the purchaser does not make the payments, that is not a breach of the Order.